Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids(of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.

Are you trying to make my case for me? You Christians typically argue against evolution, especially when there are millions of years involved. The footprints were 10 million years older than Tiktaalik.

Not only that, but you have not provided any articles that disprove evolution.

BTW, there is not a general consensus regarding Tiktaalik in the scientific community. Apparently, many do consider Tiktaalik to be transitional. From the Wiki link:

Quote

Tiktaalik lived approximately 375 million years ago. Paleontologists suggest that it is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") such as Panderichthys, known from fossils 380 million years old, and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, known from fossils about 365 million years old....

Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Anchiornis is to birds, troodonts and dromaeosaurids. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both "fish" and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:

You did not address my evidence that your DNA-sentence analogy did not work. You did not address the other four transitional fossils in the PBS link: Thrinaxodon, Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus natans, and Australopithecus afarensis.

Feet, hands and heads are where walking, tool-making and thinking reside — the very features that most conspicuously separate us from the apes — and the flock of new papers show that Australopithecus sediba was starting to separate itself indeed. This suggests a whole new transitional species between long-ago pre-humans and modern Homo sapiens....

And then there are the hands. Nothing says human — or at least fancy pre-human — like opposable thumbs and a precision grip, and sediba had both. Apes have longer fingers and shorter thumbs than humans, which is the arrangement needed for tree-climbing. Sediba — like us — reverses that, with a longer thumb and shorter fingers, just right for manipulating and making tools. Indeed, sediba's thumb is actually longer than ours, relative to the size of its fingers.

Scientists are going to keep finding fossils that support evolution, B2. Theists can kick and scream and try to refute this evidence, but science will continue to prove you wrong. We were not made in God's image. We are apes, B2. My bolding below:

Sorry, short on time this evening. However, in response to the Time Magazine Article see below. And interestingly enough, on a website that is authored by a Muslim I believe. However, he references many other scientists and literature. Link at the bottom. My points are:

1. Evolution has many hurdles to get over. It is not by any means conclusive, nor observed and documented as fact. There are alot of assumptions that one has to make to "believe" it. For one, there is no scientific proof that man came from an Ape. Would be glad to view your information. As you can see, even secular (poor word choice?)men of Science aren't all on board with this. So as stated earlier on this forum by nogodsforme, it is not a valid rigorously tested proven fact of Science. A Theory? yup. i would agree it is a theory. Anyways, I apologize for pasting such a large section into the thread. In an attempt to make it easier to read, I may have just done the opposite.

2. The point about the last article was, this discovery was not a new one that explained any link or transitional theory. Footprints of this species were found in fossil evidence that they believed to be millions of years old. Therefore, this was not a recent example of a something evolving. In fact, I believe the point was, it was an example of a life form that had not evolved in millions of years. have I misinterpreted what was said?

3. I think science will continue to reveal Gods creation, yes. Fossils don't negate Gods design. They preserve it. And as far as your "belief" that fossils will continue to prove evolution, I guess we'll have to wait and see. So far, it hasn't.

Article:

The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.

Australopithecus skulls and skeletons closely resemble those of modern apes. The drawing to the side shows a chimpanzee on the left, and an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton on the right. Adrienne L. Zhilman, the professor of anatomy who did the drawing, stresses that the structures of the two skeletons are very similar. (above)

An Australopithecus robustus skull. It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes. (above)

"GOODBYE, LUCY" Scientific discoveries have left evolutionist assumptions regarding "Lucy," once considered the most important example of the Australopithecus genus, completely unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man.This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.186 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans.187

That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear:

AFARENSIS AND CHIMPANZEES

On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull, and on the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape, with no human characteristics.

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.188

1. Evolution has many hurdles to get over. It is not by any means conclusive, nor observed and documented as fact. There are alot of assumptions that one has to make to "believe" it. For one, there is no scientific proof that man came from an Ape.

Sorry, short on time this evening. However, in response to the Time Magazine Article see below. And interestingly enough, on a website that is authored by a Muslim I believe. However, he references many other scientists and literature. Link at the bottom. My points are:

Let me get this straight: you question PBS (a reputable source), yet you expect me to accept a Muslim site? Unbelievable hypocrisy. And where is the link to that source?

1. Evolution has many hurdles to get over. It is not by any means conclusive, nor observed and documented as fact. There are alot of assumptions that one has to make to "believe" it. For one, there is no scientific proof that man came from an Ape. Would be glad to view your information. As you can see, even secular (poor word choice?)men of Science aren't all on board with this. So as stated earlier on this forum by nogodsforme, it is not a valid rigorously tested proven fact of Science. A Theory? yup. i would agree it is a theory. Anyways, I apologize for pasting such a large section into the thread. In an attempt to make it easier to read, I may have just done the opposite.

That is an absolute lie when you say, “For one, there is no scientific proof that man came from an Ape.” I provided evidence that we are, in fact, still considered apes.

As far as evolution, at least there actually is evidence for that, as I have shown you. You have yet to show me any evidence for creationism, or that your God would be the creator.

2. The point about the last article was, this discovery was not a new one that explained any link or transitional theory. Footprints of this species were found in fossil evidence that they believed to be millions of years old. Therefore, this was not a recent example of a something evolving. In fact, I believe the point was, it was an example of a life form that had not evolved in millions of years. have I misinterpreted what was said?

Go back and read my points. Nowhere was evolution disproved by what you said. In fact, I showed you in one of my quotes that Tiktaalik is still considered by paleontologists to be a transitional fossil.

3. I think science will continue to reveal Gods creation, yes. Fossils don't negate Gods design. They preserve it. And as far as your "belief" that fossils will continue to prove evolution, I guess we'll have to wait and see. So far, it hasn't.

Baseless claims. I provided evidence for evolution. You have yet to provide evidence that your God created everything.

The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.

This author is clearly ignorant and biased. It is an absolute LIE that the Australopithecus species was no different from today’s apes. Go back and read the article I posted about Australopithecus sediba. It says this (I will quote it again):

Quote

And then there are the hands. Nothing says human — or at least fancy pre-human — like opposable thumbs and a precision grip, and sediba had both. Apes have longer fingers and shorter thumbs than humans, which is the arrangement needed for tree-climbing. Sediba — like us — reverses that, with a longer thumb and shorter fingers, just right for manipulating and making tools. Indeed, sediba's thumb is actually longer than ours, relative to the size of its fingers.

Australopithecus skulls and skeletons closely resemble those of modern apes. The drawing to the side shows a chimpanzee on the left, and an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton on the right. Adrienne L. Zhilman, the professor of anatomy who did the drawing, stresses that the structures of the two skeletons are very similar. (above)

An Australopithecus robustus skull. It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes. (above)

Actually, look at this. It says that Australopithecus africanus had a cranium that was human-like:

"GOODBYE, LUCY" Scientific discoveries have left evolutionist assumptions regarding "Lucy," once considered the most important example of the Australopithecus genus, completely unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man.This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.186 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans.187

That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear:

AFARENSIS AND CHIMPANZEES

On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull, and on the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape, with no human characteristics.

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.188

Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics: members of this species had apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase (with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees. They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright. Their adaptations for living both in the trees and on the ground helped them survive for almost a million years as climate and environments changed.

So Australopithecus afarensis was both human and ape-like. BTW, I highly recommend the link that I provided above. It has many more examples of fossil evidence for evolution.

I have to add this: when I click on the only link you provided in that post, I get a "404 not found" message.

What "rigorous" tests? What new species has formed/evolved in the last 100 years? Name one! Come on you guys! Bacteria (still bacteria) have become more resistant? Wow, that nails it.

If you knew the slightest thing about how evolution actually works, rather than the creationist parody of 'magical' evolution, you'd know just how ridiculous it is to say this. Evolution works over hundreds or thousands of generations, but you seem to expect it to produce instant results. Maybe you think the 'evolution' described in later Star Trek series, where an organism mutates within the span of a single show, represents the scientific reality? If so, you need to go and spend some time studying real science.

Quote from: jtp56

What has been observed is the argument creationists use to explain how all the "kinds" of animals fit on the arc. There was no Golden Retriever breed in the 1700s, the breed was bred from guess what? Monkeys? No. Dogs!

If a species of dog were to be bred from monkeys in a few hundred years, it would disprove evolutionary theory as it currently stands. Furthermore, evolutionary theory predicts the divergence of a species into varying types depending on environmental pressures (which naturally includes humans and our efforts to get specific breeds of various animals). The part of evolutionary theory that you think this example disproves isn't even touched upon because it's a much longer-term process.

Quote from: jtp56

Applied how? How are we applying evolution? I know we are genetically engineering seed crops, but, genetically engineered corn is still corn. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Breeding different varieties of animals is evolution. Breeding different varieties of plants is evolution. This is because evolutionary theory covers both of those and virtually all other biological fields as well. Contrary to what you might think, your examples are supporting evolutionary theory, not disproving it; if you had studied what evolution is really about, you would understand why.

Quote from: jtp56

The Theory of Evolution is now "scientific fact"? You need to learn the language of science and study more, you have fallen into the kool-aid vat.

A scientific theory is essentially a fact, not an educated guess, as laymen (and you) tend to think of it. Maybe you should go and actually look up what a scientific theory is, since it's one of the most basic definitions in science. You have no room to lecture anyone on scientific understanding if you don't even understand basic jargon that's covered in high school textbooks.

Quote from: jtp56

What testing experiments in the last 150 years support evolution? Name one please! In fact, all experiments to "prove" evolution have been abysmal failures. Miller experiment (abiogenesis really), fruit fly (the most experimented on animal) to name two off the top of my head.

Okay, for starters, any and all medical testing on animals which can then be used to predict how humans will react to it. If there were no genetic relationship between humans and animals - which is an essential part of evolutionary theory - then this wouldn't work. Also, abiogenesis isn't evolution, and the fruit fly experiments you cite are clearly being misrepresented by creationists with an axe to grind (assuming you actually have sources and didn't just pull stuff out of thin air), as TalkOrigins (refer to 5.3) demonstrates.

Quote from: jtp56

The fossil record!, come on, even your guys can't agree on how it was even formed or how much original material was present and in what form to even accurately date anything.

Leaving aside that virtually everyone that knows the field and doesn't have a creationist axe to grind agrees on the dating methods, and the fact that there are several methods by which fossils can form, and far more methods by which biological remains can be converted into food for other organisms...well, I think your points are moot.

Quote from: jtp56

And from this non-consensus you blather on about "early mammal fossils that are older than early reptile fossils because simple egg-layers like reptiles predate" blah, blah, blah.

Anyone who thinks "blah blah blah" is an appropriate response in a discussion about any science is someone who doesn't know enough to contribute anything meaningful in the first place. And it's not like it's that difficult to educate yourself so that you can contribute meaningfully - which doesn't mean to mindlessly agree. Science benefits from people who don't agree about things because people who have the same beliefs don't question their basic tenets.

That's because they are proof of evolution, as you would understand if you actually took the time you're wasting with these inane 'rebuttals' and studied the subject matter at hand. You have to show that you understand enough to write intelligent critiques; right now, you're just doing the equivalent of "blah blah blah, I'm not listening, and you're wrong!"

Penicillin was discovered by accident ("it just flew in the window"). It didn't evolve, it was around like everything else. And this proves evolution how? We're looking at putting a pigs heart into humans - and this proves evolution how?

Nobody, not even all creationists, would try to argue that penicillin evolved just when we found it. And as for the pig heart thing, it helps to prove evolution because it establishes a biological relationship between pigs and humans. If there were 'kinds', as some creationists try to argue, then this would be impossible. It would be useless to do medical tests on animals in order to predict how humans might react to those same tests. Etc, etc.

Come back when you've actually studied science enough to understand just how awful your arguments are.

What "rigorous" tests? What new species has formed/evolved in the last 100 years? Name one! Come on you guys! Bacteria (still bacteria) have become more resistant? Wow, that nails it.

yes indeed it does. I do love how ignorant people like you use the products of evolutionary theory but try to attack it without actually understanding it. Honesly, if evolutionary theory doesn’t work, then why do you antibiotics? Eat the various new species of grain created using the mechanisms of evolution, etc. Again, Jtp, and now this B2, you amusingly use things that you are supposed sure dont’ work. Can I chalk that up to being too stupid to make your own choices or to your hypocrisy?

Quote

The fossil record!, come on, even your guys can't agree on how it was even formed or how much original material was present and in what form to even accurately date anything.

wow one more outright lie. Tell me, jtp, do you pray to your god to forgive you your lies every time you tell one in “his name”. Your own bible says that your god really hates this and we can see that you don’t even have enough faith to worry about that.

If you, and B2, are the best that your god can marshall to defend it, that does say quite a lot about your god with your lies, dodging, willful ignorance, and oh yes, that total lack of any abilities that your god claimed that followers of JC would have.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

1. Evolution has many hurdles to get over. It is not by any means conclusive, nor observed and documented as fact. There are alot of assumptions that one has to make to "believe" it. ..... A Theory? yup. i would agree it is a theory.

Well, fair enough then. So....this "theory of god". Conclusive, observed, documented as fact? With assumptions one has to make to "believe" it? Sounds a lot more "leap of faith" is required to believe in "god" than in "evolution".....

So since the "theory of god" is even LESS demonstrable than the "theory of evolution", I'm sure you'll agree that if evolution can be agreed to be nonesnse that should not be taught in schools, then likewise so should god. Yes?

Since we have folks here who use the results of the TOE every day but refuse to accept it as true, let's issue a challenge. We are willing to accept the results of the Theory of God if they can prove that we use those results and applications in our daily lives.

Give us a brief but complete explanation of the TOG and demonstrate the current research, tests and evidence that show it to be valid.